Human Rights and Democracy have always been regarded as mutually reinforcing notions. However, at the basic conceptual level, the relationship between Human Rights, as an expression of political liberalism, and Democracy, as an expression of popular sovereignty is marked by real tension. Moreover, the internationalization of Human Rights is often said to have contributed to the severance of the two concepts. Do you agree with that statement? Critically assess the relationship between Democracy and Human Rights.
Solution
ABSTRACT
Liberal Theorists have long asserted that Democracy and Human Rights are mutually reinforcing concepts and notions. In literature, about liberalism and neo-liberalism, it is also suggested that Human Rights and Democracy are a single subject, which is associated. More functional/efficient a democracy, more rights and freedom its grants to individuals, groups and organizations and the more freedom and rights it grants, more stability a democracy attains.
In our study, we examined the alleged association between Human Rights and Democracy and found out that both are correlated. In most effective and functional democracies, human rights are protected more vigorously. In quasi-democracies, human rights are undermined by other priorities of the state. Therefore, in Western Liberal Democracies, which are considered healthy democracies, Human Rights are proactively protected, which facilitates the growth of democracy. However, it is also the fact that in recent years the association or the correlation between Human Rights and Democracy, has deteriorated or lessened. There are several causes of this deterioration or lessening.
One of the prime causes is the assertion that understanding regarding Human Rights is universal. It is a complication because it undermines the fact that understanding regarding Human Rights is affected by culture, history, values and political/economic climate. Therefore, there cannot be a universal understanding of Human Rights. Another cause is the internationalization of Human Rights, through various means and methods, which creates political Backlash. There are several examples of forces internationalization of Human Rights, which undermines popular sovereignty and adversely affects democracies. Brexit is one such example of political Backlash of Internationalization of Human Rights (forced to adopt the Human Rights Act of 1998 as a member of the European Union). By addressing these causes of severance, we can effectively reverse the deterioration in the association between Democracy and Human Rights.
INTRODUCTION
The emergence of organized life and state had various causes. These causes included the will to protect and nourish life. Therefore, we can say that state or organized life emerged or came into existence to protect/nourish life and for that not only it formed institutions, but also dedicated resources. When we study the evolution of states, we learn that with the maturing of political thought, the understanding regarding life and Human Rights has augmented. The study also reveals that this deepening of understanding and increase in respect for human life and rights are consequences of developments in political and economic realms, which affected society and its evolution (Hafner-Burton and Mansfield 9).
For instance, after the Industrial Revolution, several political-economic and political-social ideas appeared. Few of these ideas matured and refined into philosophies, which eventually translated into political-economic-social systems, in which individuals/groups had different rights and obligations. In democracies, which were based on the notions and principles of capitalism, freedom of an individual or a group was supreme, whereas socialist system was based on equality (Goldstone 340).
It is apparent from the study of different political-economic models that liberal western democracies offered the most rights. In fact, literature about Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism asserts that the only effective and fully functional democracy can ensure maximum human rights. Also, liberalism also asserts that democracy is a prerequisite for a free and progressing society, where thoughts and intellect, mature at a greater pace (Armstrong and Davenport 544).
These assertions, political liberalism, suggest that there is a positive correlation between human rights and democracy and a negative correlation between Human Rights Violations and Democracy (Armstrong and Davenport 549). However, recent studies suggest that this correlation is reducing as because of the Internationalization of Human Rights and Popular Sovereignty (Walling 398).
In this academic exercise, we will examine the evidence regarding the correlation between Democracy and Human Rights. Also, we will scrutinize that does the recent developments, such as Internationalization of Human Rights, is untangling the two concepts and phenomena. However, the scrutiny and analysis would require profound discussion on Democracy and Human Rights.
DEMOCRACY
Democracy is considered a system, which is a translation of capitalist notions and principles. As per its broadest understanding, it is Rule of People (the most simple and broad understanding). The academic understandings, of democracy, are complex and comprehensive. According to one of the prevailing academic understandings, it is a system (political) in which outcomes are not determined by a single participant, but by several participants and a range of factors influence these outcomes (Walling 403).
As per the simplest (but comprehensive) understanding or definition of democracy, it is a system in which popular vote elect’s legislators. These members of a government for a particular period, during which will of the majority and political agenda are implemented. (Note: in democracies, most of these elected members are affiliated with a political party, and people vote them based on their political ideology and agenda.)
It is imperative to understand that it is not easy to predict the outcome as several factors influence an outcome. It suggests that the evolution of a democratic system (socio-political-economic), which depends on the outcome, is hard to predict. Neither we can predict the direction of its evolution, nor can we predict the pace of its evolution.
However, the study of political-economic and social-political developments, in a democracy, suggests that outcomes gave birth to new realities, which were inherently unstable and riddled with new contradictions. Therefore, political-economic, and political-social developments have not only an association but also a sequence. For instance, Civil Rights Movement, of the late 60s, was supported by left and it was a movement to end discrimination, segregation, and racial victimization. The success of the movement produced an outcome or reality, which facilitated more such socio-political and political-economic movements, which aimed more rights and freedom for humans (Armstrong and Davenport 546).
HUMAN RIGHTS
There exist different understandings and definitions of Human Rights. One of the prevalent understandings is that Human Rights are fundamental rights, which are inalienable. As per some assertions, to these fundamental rights, an individual is inherently entitled, and state must recognize these moral principles and norms.
In historical context, this popular understanding is inconsistent because at various stages of civilization, these sets of principles or norms, which we identify as Human Rights, were different. For instance, during the imperial period, the understanding of human rights was very different from the contemporary understanding of human rights. Similarly, in post-Industrial Revolution era, the understanding of Human Rights changed gradually, this was quite different from the perceptions and precepts (about Human Rights) from pre-Industrial Revolution Era. Therefore, understanding of Human Rights has developed with time, and several factors have influenced this development (Langlois 997).
The scrutiny of the subject also makes it apparent that Human Rights are further sub-divided into different categories. For instance, economic rights are different from political rights; however, both types of rights are governed by the same principles (identical foundations). Similarly, social and cultural rights are governed by similar notions, or they have identical foundations.
We have also discovered that political thought, especially liberal-political thought, has played a significant role in constructing an understanding regarding Human Rights. Most of the literary material, about Human Rights, is produced by liberal intellectuals. These Human Rights understandings, embedded with political-liberal notions, were propagated both symmetrically and asymmetrically. In the age of the internet, the propagation of these ideas became more methodical and greater in reach, which allowed understandings, about Human Rights, to internationalize (Madsen 260).
NEO-LIBERAL CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
It is very apparent from the scrutiny of evidence that Neo-Liberal concept and theories are influencing both Human Rights and Contemporary Democracy. The in-depth analysis of the neo-liberal literature suggests that liberal and neo-liberal intellectuals are investing their efforts to make democracy and Human Rights a single subject or concept (inseparable). For instance, in literature, it is systematically asserted that only democracy ensures rights and freedom, and no other political-economic-social system can guarantee utmost freedom and rights. To endorse this argument, they give an example of totalitarian states, in which democracy is absent (such as China) (Langlois 996).
The liberal literature also asserts that more functional (healthy) a democracy, more freedom, and rights individuals and groups have. For endorsing this argument, liberal literature gives an example of quasi-democracies, in which individuals do have similar rights, which individuals and groups of Western democracies have (literature gives examples countries/democracies like Russia and Turkey).
Far-left literature asserts that maximizes freedom and rights address the inherent inconsistency and the dichotomy of democracy and it makes democracy more stable, which ensures political, economic, and social progress.
From these arguments, we can deduce that the liberal literature suggests that there is a two-way association between Human Rights and Democracy. Democracy grants freedom and rights (more functional a democracy, more rights, and freedom, it offers) and more freedom and rights ensure healthy growth of the democratic system (Madsen 266).
This analogy, which is partly based on evidence, undermines, or neglects popular sovereignty. For instance, it does not effectively address the will of the majority, which is influenced by several factors, such as contemporary trends, culture, history, and environment (political and economic).
EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION
It is not difficult to establish the association between Democracy and Human Rights. The literature, about Human Rights, provides ample evidence that ascertains that both the phenomena are interconnected. To discern or determine the association between these two phenomena, we also only have to study democracies around the world. The in-depth study of these democracies will provide evidence regarding the association between Human Rights and Democracy (Cooley 52).
We learn from the study of democracies, all across the globe, that in different countries the health or the functioning of democracy is different, for instance, in some countries, democracy is extremely healthy, and it can produce desired results in a short – span of time. In some countries, democracy is not highly effective or functional, and governments in these democracies neither reflect the will of the majority nor are they able to implement the political-economic agenda (Cooley 53).
The study also reveals that more functional, these democracies, more freedom and rights individuals or groups have. For instance, Western liberal democracies are considered the most functional and healthy democracies, in which individuals and groups have enormous freedom and rights in compared to the individuals and groups of those countries, in which democracy is lacking or less efficient as a system.
Many global institutions have quantified data about freedom and rights and statistics regarding freedom and rights, in a country, reveal that Western Liberal Democracies grant more freedom and rights to Humans and groups they form. However, these rights come under-attack because of political conflict. For instance, after September 11 attacks, Bush Administration took extraordinary security measures, which undermined few fundamental rights, even those, which were guaranteed by the American constitution (Walling 403).
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
For understanding the internationalization of Human Rights, it is imperative to understand their relationship with neo-liberal political thought and neo-classic economics. It is quite evident that neo-liberal politics are linked to neo-classical economics, in which the size of government is small, and natural factors are allowed to evolve realities. In fact, liberal economic systems of Western democracies are based on the principles and precepts of neo-classical economics.
Major global political and financial institutions are based under the influence or headed by neo-classical economists and neoliberals, which facilitate these major institutions to subtly advance or implement neo-liberal agenda, which includes the export of a particular understanding of Human Rights to different countries. In fact, some organizations, such as the European Union, and global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, condition diplomatic and financial aid/assistance with so-called improvement in Human Rights, which one of the methods to promote or internationalize Human Rights (Walling 403).
For instance, European Union pushed the member states to accept the Human Rights Act, which produced some backlash, which was never properly addressed. The Human Rights Act was systematically incorporated in the constitution of member states.
Also, whenever governments are formed by the left of the central political parties, they implement not only liberal agenda, which includes Human Rights, but also a liberal export agenda. Such political developments play an important role in the internationalization of Human Rights.
Furthermore, the liberal political groups and intellectuals have produced enormous literature, which was used not only in the shaping of opinion regarding the relevance of an association between Democracy and Human Rights. Modern instruments, such as the internet, are also exploited to propagate a certain perception about the correlation between Human Rights and Democracy (Goldstone 356).
The study regarding the internationalization of Human Rights suggests that internationalization of Human Rights was partly deliberate and partly organic. It cannot be denied that Human Rights are desired in both democratic and non-democratic states. However, not always movements and measures (of states), about Human Rights, are organic.
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
The democratic system came into existence to manifest and implement the people’s will. The democratic system translates people’s will into laws, policies, and regulations, which is its prime function. If a democratic system fails to manifest and implement the will of the majority, it is a flawed democratic system. Therefore, in a democracy, it is popular sovereignty, which is supreme, and this implies that only the majority, in a country, has the right to interpret Human Rights (Walling 408).
It is a known fact that interpretation of Human Rights is affected by culture, history, geography, and political-economic climate of a country. Therefore, it is hard to accept that Human Rights are universal.
The emphasis of liberal literature, about Democracy and Human Rights, is on the universality of Human Rights. It is asserted that all highly progressive states (post-industrial political-economic systems) have similar socioeconomic and political realities, which is why the interpretation of Human Rights is similar, if not identical. However, the evidence suggests that it is not the case. One of the reasons for the divorce between Britain and European Union was Human Rights Act. Most of the British believed that the Human Rights Act undermined the sovereignty (customs, laws, and regulations) of the United Kingdom.
“Pre-revolution” Iran is another example where Western culture and values (political and social) were imported, which gave birth to a new kind of contradictions, which depended on time and eventually caused a forceful dismantling of the political-economic system.
States are usually extremely sensitive regarding sovereignty. Also, if a local or international law undermines popular sovereignty, it creates various kinds of political challenges (Hafner-Burton and Mansfield 16).
SEVERANCE
We must acknowledge that Human Rights and Democracy are not just mutually reinforcing notions in literature, but also in actuality. For instance, there is statistical evidence, which suggests that there is a positive correlation between Human Rights and Democracy. Therefore, the correlation or the association between Human Rights and Democracy does not only exist in liberal literature but also in reality. However, it is also true that that Internationalization of Human Rights and the assertion that liberal interpretations of Human Rights are universal are causing severance between the two phenomena (Madsen 269).
It is becoming very evident that each country, which has its history, culture, and political-economic climate, has its understanding of Human Rights. When this interpretation is superimposed on existing understanding, it uniquely undermines popular sovereignty. It deteriorates the association between Human Rights and Democracy, which examples are growing.
From this academic exercise, we learn that the process of deterioration is usually slow, but it accelerates during the recessionary periods when political-economic systems are under enormous pressure. We also learn that severance is being caused by a forceful imposition of a certain interpretation of Human Rights understandings, which are being claimed to be universal.
This severance of two concepts and phenomena can be reversed by addressing the factors, which are causing the severance. For instance, it is quite established that Human Rights understandings are not universal, but rather local. Therefore, Human Rights understanding, and its various interpretations must not be projected as universal. Also, Human Rights understandings must not be forced upon other nations, as some organizations and global financial organizations try to do. European Union, for instance, has a conditional trade policy; it uses trade to project/export its understanding of Human Rights (Langlois 1010).
CONCLUSION
In the end, it is concluded that it is well established that Human Rights and Democracy are not just associated, but also correlated, which means that healthier a democracy, more freedom, and the rights it grants. There is also enormous statistical evidence in favor of the claim that Human Rights and Democracy are correlated. Therefore, Human Rights and Democracy are not just mutually reinforcing notions, in liberal literature, but in reality, too they are correlated. However, it is also a fact that the association between the phenomena is deteriorating or attenuating and there are several causes of that.
One of the major causes is that liberal literature, organizations, and governments try to establish, artificially and forcefully, that various liberal understandings of Human Rights are universal and therefore, all democracies must not only accept these understandings but also incorporate it in the constitution. Secondly, some organizations and financial institutions forcefully try to impose these understandings on other countries, which create a political backlash, as in the case of Britain (Brexit) and Iran (Islamic Revolution of 1979). The severance, between Democracy and Human Rights, can be reversed or at least slowed down by addressing these causes. If such causes do not exist, democracy and human rights are not mere mutually reinforcing concepts, but actual phenomena.
Work Cited
Armstrong, David A and Christian Davenport. “Democracy and the violation of human rights: A statistical analysis from 1976 to 1996.” American Journal of Political Science 48.3 (2004): 538-554.
Cooley, Alexander. “Countering democratic norms.” Journal of Democracy 26.3 (2015): 49-63.
Goldstone, Jack A. “”Efflorescences and economic growth in world history: rethinking the” Rise of the West” and the Industrial Revolution.” Journal of world history 13.2 (2002): 323-389.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M and Edward D Mansfield. “Human Rights Institutions, Sovereignty Costs and Democratization.” British Journal of Political Science 45.1 (2013): 1-27.
Langlois, Anthony J. “Human rights without democracy? A critique of the separationist thesis.” Human Rights Quarterly 25.4 (2003): 990-1019.
Madsen, Mikael Rask. “Reflexivity and the construction of the international object: The case of human rights.” nternational Political Sociology 5.3 (2011): 259-275.
Walling, Carrie Booth. “Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Intervention.” Human Rights Quarterly 37.2 (2015): 383-413.
+447462439809